Versioning

[Guy Rixon]

Well, version numbers are cheap...but this seem like an unwanted side- 
effect. last I heard (Strasbourg, IIRC), the major-version rule  
applied to the entire WD/PR/REC set with the intermediates being  
distinguished by the date. Why the change?

Guy

On 2 Jul 2009, at 17:44, Matthew Graham wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You might be aware that the Document Standards v1.2 PR has just  
> completed its RFC (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/DocStdRFC2 
> ). I raised concerns about the proposed versioning scheme:
>
> "The document now states that there is an integer increment in the  
> version number in the case where subsequent versions are not  
> backward compatible. "
>
> and the response that has been posted is:
>
> "The Committee agrees that the version numbering scheme is  
> challenging when dealing with namespaces and WSDL, and leads to the  
> conclusion that when IVOA standards describe web services or have  
> associated XML schemas, with namespaces that when changed, cause  
> software to break, then these changes must both be accompanied by an  
> increment to the integer part of the document and the associated  
> "supplementary" files. This would not affect most of the standards  
> documents, and should not present any real logistical difficulty, as  
> there are a sufficient number of integers available to support any  
> number of revisions. "
>
> This has greatest impact for this working group (GWS but I am also  
> cross-posting to Semantics)  and essentially means that ALL (WD, PR,  
> etc) versions of our specs with WSDL/XML/RDF documents (anything  
> with a namespace) will only carry integer versions.
>
> So, for example, the progression of VOSpace 2.0 would actually  
> proceed as:
>
> VOSpace 2 (first WD)
> VOSpace 3 (second WD)
> VOSpace 4 (third WD)
> VOSpace 5 (first PR)
> VOSpace 6 (second PR)
> VOSpace 7 (final PR)
> VOSpace 8 (REC)
>
> The next version would then VOSpace 9, etc.
>
> Although this is very much a procedural issue, I just wanted to flag  
> it so that everyone is aware and happy with it before I approve.
>
> 	Cheers,
>
> 	Matthew